Whose using them? What do you think? Edging? Tinting? ARing? How are the progressive lenses?
My owner is bringing this up, I am curious.
Cindy
Whose using them? What do you think? Edging? Tinting? ARing? How are the progressive lenses?
My owner is bringing this up, I am curious.
Cindy
Also if you are using them or have used them what system are you using?Originally Posted by cinders831
Can not remember anybody making a favorable posting on this subject. My own expirience is having lost a bundle of money together with many others on such a venture.
I have also learned that none of the companies selling those systems have made it to a popular item. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I believe if you search the threads you will see a few posts about the pros and cons of in-house casting systems. I have used a couple over the years and my experience with the ODC system was favorable. For similar money, though, you can have an in-office surface lab but the skill required will be much greater. In-house lens casting requires patience and diligence. It is user dependent as far as yields go.
Doc
I think the overriding issue here is the viability of low volume or "single office scale" lens manufacturing. The "cast-to-prescription" lens molding systems are one way to pursue this. At least one other way has been suggested - which I will come to in a moment. Since I am not involved in the eyecare industry, I have nothing at stake personally in this post. As a consumer (Rx lens user), I'm interested in the technology and what products it may offer to me. Just to forward the discussion, I have put together this uniquely NCIS style investigation of the subject.
I know of two options for low volume cast-to-prescription Rx lens manufacture: Opticast and Optical Dynamics. In 2002, VisionCareProductsOnline reviewed the Opticast system under the title Opticast On-Site Lens Casting: Systems for Practice Growth. In 2003, the same trade magazine reviewed the Optical Dynamics system under the title Cast for Better Performance: The ATORx Lens.
What about a low volume AR technology to complement the lens manufacture? Optical Dynamics has just come out with such a process, and it is reviewed in the current VisionCareProductsOnline under the title nanoCLEAR AR Makes AR Lenses in an Hour. And Chemalux offers a low volume system for AR using a spin-coat method. There was an OptiBoard thread Small or In-Office A/R Coating Systems which was last updated in 2001.
In 2001, there was a post which referred to the possibility of "desktop lens generators using YAG laser technology" - but I'm unaware of any further developments along that line.
Just a few months back, there was a post that recommended Fastgrind over the lens molding systems. Be sure to see the follow-up comment by Jacqui http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...7&postcount=11 and a second comment by opticalman http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=12 For more on Fastgrind, see http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13557 and http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2342
More discussion of office-scale lens manufacturing:
Casted Lenses last updated 12-05-2005.
in-shop lens casting solutions last updated 11-15-2005.
Optical Dynamics Lens Casting last updated 09-26-2005.
Opticast info last updated 08-26-2005.
direct injection modling versus cast molding.. last updated 06-25-2005.
In-Office Lens Fabrication Systems last updated 01-18-2005.
Tell me what you know about "Custom Casting" of lenses? last updated 10-29-2002.
More Optical Dynamics last updated 06-12-2001.
optical dynamics last updated 05-31-2001.
I also found one post from 2004, where an OB member said that they had been fitting their patients with "Paradigm" PALs made with the Optical Dynamics lens molding system.
Yours truly.
Last edited by rinselberg; 03-14-2006 at 06:58 AM.
In-store casting:
Tried it once, never again, cost a fortune in trash lenses, and never saw a really good result. The system I used was by Inno-Tech, and used glass casts, and 70 blank carrier lenses, with a liquid resin
- Slow
- un-reliable
- Never saw a good Dseg at all - very poor optics
- thicker CT means thicker minus lenses (substrate + resin = thicker)
- Very thick plus lenses (no option to go for smaller blanks)
- Limited lens designs
- expensive
- nasty smelling chemicals
Thanks for the notes posted and please keep them coming.
Remember the Innotech fiasco? Buy the machine for $25,000, and the only supplier for the resin is that manufacturer. Then the manufacturer gets bought out, new owner wants to use the technology elsewhere, and stops selling the resin.
So do the newer machines have more than one supplier of resin?
Harry
Monomers and resins...........
Monomers and resins are not made by the suppliers of such casting systems. They are used, have been used either in the optical and many other industries. They are alsways available.
We are always of the believe that all syatems used in our trade are unique to that field. Most of the time they have been used elwhere for a long time before something new popps up in the optical.
that was the system I used, was a crock of pooh
We are always of the believe that all syatems used in our trade are unique to that field. Most of the time they have been used elwhere for a long time before something new popps up in the optical.[/quote]
Does anyone know what other applications or fields use these monomer/polymers?
RR
CD's are poly, Rollerskate wheels are polyethelene (trivex), I think CR-39 is unique to the optical industry. I also think that all products in the optical industry except Glass are one formulation or another of these three. I could be wrong about what Trivex is but whatever it is, rollerskate wheels are made of it. Poly is used for RV windows, and lots of stuff. Polymethylmetharcrilate is not used for anything optical except PMMA contact lenses but it is also used for lots of things outside the industry, displays for instance.
Other than CR-39 I think we stole our plastics from other industries and they are in wide spread use. Just Google the material and you will get reams of materials and uses.
Chip
Chip
we got taken on the innotech system as well. not only did we lose $20,000, but it took a technician full time to use. The lenses were too thick, and too pliable, tinting was nigh on impossible. Was almost elated when J@J decided against allowing us to buy monomers anymore. The profit was only in clear progressives in cr-39. Making ft's were not as economically feasible when you added up labor and the sort, than ordering uncuts surfaced.
The big thing that I didn't like about Opticast was the price of clear SV. Opticast is $12.50 pr., I can buy 7 or 8 pairs of generic CR-39 for that price.
Skate wheels are made of polyurethane, so it's more like a 1.60 than Trivex.
CR-39 was made for gauge covers and fuel tank linings for B-17s.
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
CR-39 monomer was first compounded in 1940 by PPG. Its first commercial use was in searchlight lenses and reflectors. This was far to late to be used in the B-17. The B-17 fuel bladders were constructed from neoprene and the aux tanks were aluminum. The first aviation use after the war was in instrument bezels.
The lens casting machine couldn't perform good hard coat on the back compare to those from optical labs! I know it is related to thermo issue.
maybe Chris's company could have an answer to the hard coating on the back of casted lenses.
Dragon:
The stuff for tank and cargo ship hole linings was polycarbonate. The reason it was used for spectacle lenses was there was a whole lot if it left over after WWII with no market for it.
You are correct about Skate wheels being Polyeurathane but this is also the base for Phoenix/Trivex. At least as far as the "continueing education" sales pitch lectures I have attended by lens manufacturers.
Polycarbonate is also the material for screwdriver handles and many plastic hammer heads.
Chip
Last edited by chip anderson; 02-18-2008 at 09:58 AM. Reason: Mo' ta' say.
There is much more of these latest materials used in other industries from construction to electronics. AR coatings in the electronic field is much larger than the optical. Even the nds of fibreoptics calbes are hard coated before connecting them.
The latest in optics is very often something that has been standard for years in other industries.
Boots Opticians in Britain invested millions in this, only to abandon it several weeks later. Too many problems, including staff coming out in boils! Maybe it has improved in recent times, but I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
I got a full surfacing setup with backside hard coater for about $7,000 and can process all materials. Save your money on the casting systems.
Everything QDO1 said was true, add that there may not be any short-corridor PAL's available with the system you're considering. With today's weird (small) frame shapes, you'll want that capability.
-Steve
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks